From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9494b48ca8a786de X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Lowe Anthony A Subject: Re: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful? Date: 1998/05/11 Message-ID: <35578163.66A19614@cacd.rockwell.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 352357347 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6j0r8s$c0t$1@plug.news.pipex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Rockwell A&C Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aalowe@cacd.rockwell.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I think Nick's idea is a great idea. I would also resonate with Tucker's idea to stay with the Java definition. Let Ada do what Ada does best and Java do what Java does best. With the cross compilation abilities, this becomes even more powerful for creating all Java byte code executables. Maybe this is a topic that a SIGAda Working Group (Bindings WG?) would be helpful in instrumenting. It may also be interesting in seeing what vendors use for their Ada GUI builder's interface. I know Aonix has a GUI builder which utilizes a win32 binding. I would be interested in helping with this in any way possible. -- Tony Lowe Rockwell Collins 1431 Opus Place - Downers Grove, IL 60515 (630)-960-8603 Fax : (630)-960-8207